Talk:Democracy/Archive 15

Merger proposal
I propose that Varieties of democracy be merged into Democracy. I think that the content in the Varieties of democracy article can easily be explained in the context of Democracy, and the Democracy article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Varieties of democracy will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. &rarr;Yaniv256talkcontribs 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong merge: So long as the information is preserved, I'm for this. In particular, I'd like to see the information in Varieties of democracy receive its own subsection under Democracy, since the Democracy page does not currently include any information about hybrid democracy. Other relevant, sourced information in Varieties of democracy could be merged into the appropriate sections of Democracy, but I would want to avoid merging much of the substantive info into Outline of democracy, since the outline page is supposed to be rather light on details. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Democracy Index tables
These tables should be alphabetized -- it's difficult to find a specific country. Also, tables are not the best way to present this data, columnized lists would be better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently the order is according to the Democracy Index, but if you prefer alphabetic, be my guest. :) Moreover, if you dislike the idea of the table, I would not be offended if you just take it out, and would not revert. I am not so sure about the table myself, and thought just to give it a try. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 01:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If they are in some specific order that the Index placed them in, that's fine, but a table doesn't give you any clue if it should be read down or across. Were the countries numbered? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They are ranked in the original publication and in our Democracy Index article. I put in captions to that effect. I am not sure I need to repeat the caption in the second table. Please correct me there if I am wrong. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 03:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, the list is ugly. &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 03:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It takes up less space than the table, and presents the order of the data unambiguosly. The table was unnecessary and ambiguous, even with your note at the bottom. When I was preparing the list to replace the second table, I realized that taking that amount of information (country and ranking) directly from the Index was straying into WP:COPYVIO territory, so I've replaced it with an alphabetical listing of the countries in text form.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I acctually don't think that the ranking should be stressed at all, as it is just a number someone put together. The bigger issue for me is that we lost all the flags and links. This article serves mostly middle and high-school students, and for them I think color is very important. But, it is a matter of taste. If space is of concern we can always use a smaller font. Prototime, do you have a preference? &rarr;Yaniv256windroads 03:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The rankings are based on the scores which generate the index value, which determines what category the country falls into, so they're not irrelevant at all. The links are there, and the use of flags is generally deprecated -- and all of Wikipedia's artles are aimed at a general audience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the use of flags being generally deprecated; scores of articles on Wikipedia use flags in conjunction with national or international subjects. See, for example, United Nations, Reactions to the September 11 attacks, and Syrian civil war, just to name a few of the numerous articles that use flags. While not of utmost importance, for consistency and aesthetic appeal, flags are appropriate and should probably be used in this article as well. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:FLAGS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While flag icons are by no means forbidden, the guidelines recommend that their use be severely limited.  In this situation, the flag icon is mere decoration, because a picture of the flag of Norway does not convey any more information than the word "Norway" does -- in fact, it conveys less, because the word can exist on its own, but for the vast majority of people, the flag will have little or no meaning until the word gives it context.  Because of this, the flag icon is simply a pretty decoration, with no encyclopedic value.  Please don't restore the flag icons and make an issue out of it, because it's one that you will eventually lose: the tide is certainly running against the unnecessary use of flags icons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Rights and Freedoms
Democracy is about civil rights and personal freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and suffrage are some of the fundamental rights and freedoms in democracy. In democratic nations, life, liberty, and property cannot be taken away without legal cause. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" -Constitution of the United States of America
 * Those are rights, that are often recognised in democracies, but are not necessarily aspects of democracy -- for instance, if the majority of voters wanted, they could vote away freedom of religion, or whatever, theoretically. The right to vote, and elect representatives -- political rights -- are often included in charters/bills/declarations of rights, which often limit the power of democracies, or the tyranny of majority. So, what I'm getting at is, I think you are confusing democracy with human rights. And also, the point of this statement is unclear.AnieHall (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Democracy-Repression Nexus and the Democracy Continuum
Democracy-repression nexus and democratic continuum don't appear to have articles. I'm wondering if they should be included in this article? or if they should have separate articles? or if they already exist under some other title? looking for advice.AnieHall (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * thoughts? AnieHall (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Patriarchy
I had an edit removed for repeatedly adding "patriarchy" to types of governmental systems in the opening paragraphs to this article. I will summarize the debate so far. First, my edit was deleted because an editor said patriarchy is a social system, not a governmental system, so I added a source to the dictionary definition of patriarchy which says it is a type of governmental system. The edit was also removed because it was suggested that patriarchy was not part of the philosophical discussion of ancient Greece, so I added a source for Aristotle's discussion of patriarchy as a model of power distribution in society and government. Then I had the edit removed because the editor said that patriarchy is both a governmental system and a social system and also that it is already included in the term "oligarchy" that is mentioned in the article. The editor requested that I take this debate to the talk section, which I am respectfully doing, so I will address the last two reasons for deleting my edit. First, it is not a logical argument to say that because something is by definition both A AND B that you cannot cite it as and example of A.  Patriarchy being both a social and governmental system does not effect the legitimacy of referencing it as a governmental system here. Why should it? That is a specious argument, in my opinion. Second, patriarchy is not a type of oligarchy for two reasons. Oligarchy is, specifically "rule of the few" and men, as a class, are nearly half the population. Also, if patriarchy is a type of oligarchy, then Athenian democracy was an oligarchy, because it was a patriarchy, which contradicts the meaning of the sentence in question, that democracy and oligarchy were in opposition in Athenian political philosophy. Obviously the Greeks did not think patriarchy was a type of oligarchy, as they did not see their society as an oligarchy and it was a patriarchy. The patriarchal nature of Athenian and Early American democracies are often left invisible in discussions of political theory. However, this is 2012, and this article should reflect the consciousness of today, not the biases of history. I want to stress that I am not adding bias, I am removing it. I was respectful enough to take this debate to the talk page when requested (even though I have repeatedly shown the evidence to refute the arguments of the editors who deleted my edits). In fact, I think the burden of proof should be on the editors who are deleting my edits, as I have supplied citations and proofs for my arguments, but the editors who deleted did not.Amyluna13 (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions. I would like to point out that Wikipedia operates on consensus. There is no "burden of proof" that falls on the editors; if a change to an article is made that other editors disagree with, then the appropriate action is to discuss it to try to develop consensus, just as you are doing now on the talk page. If no consensus can be reached, then per WP:NOCONSENSUS the result is that the proposed change is not added to the article. Hopefully we can avoid that here.


 * Concerning the content you would like to add to the article, I fail to understand what relevance patriarchy has in the context you are presenting it in. A couple points: 1) patriarchy is not, first and foremost, a form of government. As numerous sources cited on the patriarchy article suggest, the term is used primarily to refer to a social system where men dominate over women. Feminists generally agree that the United States has a "patriarchy" even though the franchise is fully extended to women. Your use of the term "patriarchy" as a form of government is a narrow use of the word. 2) Assuming patriarchy is a form of government, it does not exist on the same level of generality as a monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy. Rather, it is a subtype or feature of government. I mentioned in an edit summary that patriarchy is a form of oligarchy, where men rule without election; it can also exist in a democracy where the franchise is restricted to men (which arguably would be a mixed democratic/oligarchic state). Either way, it is not a term used on the same level of generality as monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy. It is more akin to more specific terms like bureaucracy or technocracy, which describe features of governments that may be ruled by one, a few, or many (monarchy, oligarchy, democracy). Under your reasoning, the sentence should also include other specific terms like matriarchy and describe governments where only particular races or religions can rule. I do not understand your fixation on including specifically patriarchy. 3) While Greek philosophers may have discussed patriarchy, it was not included in their formulations of the basic types of governments--unlike democracy, monarchy, and oligarchy, which were included. See, for example, Politics (Aristotle).


 * In summary, using patriarchy in the way you suggest appears to conflict with its common usages and gives the term undue weight in the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments and your time. I understand the definition of consensus.  My point was that one person does not a consensus make. :)  My use of the term "burden of proof" was not meant to be taken in a legal or literal sense, but in the spirit of argumentation, in that a negation in and of itself is not a valid argument.  So I am glad that you elaborated further on your positions, which I enjoyed reading, as I welcome an informed, intelligent, debate of complex issues. I believe I understand your arguments, but I disagree with them.  I will address each of the facets of your positions individually.


 * First, if I understand you correctly, you are equating the demographic of biological sex (patriarchy) with the demographics of labor specialization, i.e clergy (theocracy), administrators (bureaucracy) or scientists (technocracy).  In each of these three examples, authority was given and the structure of the government organized around a person's particular skill, qualification, and exercise thereof.  Granting power through a demographic which one receives by virtue of their birth is a qualitatively different "elite" because in the case of labor demographics, the type of government is organized around that skill.  However, in the case of patriarchy, being male does not determine how the government will function, only who may hold power.  So the analogy does not hold.


 * Second, as previously stated, I disagree with you that since patriarchy is also a form of social and cultural distribution of power, that that negates the importance of it as a characteristic of governmental organization, as well. In fact, I believe pointing out the universality of patriarchy governmentally, socially and culturally is an argument in favor of the pervasive influence of this particular distribution of power that is so universal that it crosses these three lines, further highlighting the need to elevate it to a more prominent discussion regarding types of government, such as in this article.  In other words, when something is so utterly universal in its influence, of course citing one particular area will be a "narrowing" of it's definition.  But that does not invalidate its importance.  "Feminists agree" that the United States is currently a social and cultural patriarchy, yes.  But they also agree that it was previously a political patriarchy, prior to 1920.  I would add that it is not a requirement to be a "feminist" in order to realize that this characterization of American government prior to 1920 is correct by definition, lol.


 * Third, you are claiming that the Greeks did not include patriarchy in their formulations of the basic types of governments. Oh. Yes. They. Did. :) A quote from the article you cited on "Politics"


 * "The highest form of community is the polis. Aristotle comes to this conclusion because he believes the public life is far more virtuous than the private. He comes to this conclusion because MEN are 'political animals.'" (emphasis mine)


 * Both directly and indirectly, Aristotle repeatedly referred to the quality of governance by men and why government and the distribution of power through government should be organized around biological sex. You are making the error of stating that because something is implicit or assumed, that it is therefore a subtype. Not so.  Obviously the argument that the definition of democracy implies that men are the only sex equipped to govern is false, as the two ideas are no longer linked today.  These were, at the time of the Athenians, as today, two entirely different lines of reasoning. First, that governmental organization should be such that all citizens have a voice (democracy) and second, that males should rule over females in both the government and the home for no other reason than their biological sex (patriarchy).   Athenian government, and the democracies that followed were a mix of democratic and patriarchal elements.


 * Fourth, patriarchy is not a subtype or feature of the three governments you cite. It is its own unique class, by virtue of the following distinctions


 * Democracy - rule of ALL people who are defined as citizens
 * Oligarchy - rule of FEW people who are defined as a predetermined elite by virtue of set qualities which vary from elite to elite (such as clergy, administrators or scientists)
 * Monarchy - rule of ONE person who is defined as succeeding through divine right
 * Patriarchy - rule of HALF the people, defined by their biological sex at birth


 * Fifth, patriarchy absolutely exists on the same level of generality as democracy, oligarchy and monarchy. In fact, it is even more general, as this type of governmental power distribution has blended with all three of these types. It is not a subtype, it is a hybrid element.


 * Finally, matriarchy is not relevant here, as it was neither discussed by the Greeks, nor has it manifested in governments pervasively throughout modern history, as patriarchy did (and still does).


 * In sum, you believe patriarchy to be a characteristic or demographic of an elite class, a subtype of oligarchy. As I said previously, under the Greek definitions, that would mean that Athenian government was an oligarchic democracy, and of course, the Athenians absolutely would not have characterized their society as such. They would have proudly characterized it (and implicitly did) as a patriarchal democracy.  The only reason they didn't use the qualifier then is because at the time, patriarchal authority was assumed, ipso facto. The article states that contemporary governments have mixed elements. By definition and their own admission, Athenian government also had mixed elements--of patriarchy and democracy.  People who argue otherwise sometimes say that democracy wasn't "perfected" until universal suffrage, but I believe that is a trivialization of the overt, stated intent by many throughout history, including the ancient Greeks, to organize power around biological sex as a means of power distribution and therefore a principle of governmental organization.  In other words, it's so obvious and universal, it's invisible.  But that doesn't mean it didn't or doesn't exist.


 * In addition, this article is sorely lacking in a discussion of the women's suffrage movement (the most revolutionary development in democracy and enfranchisement since Athens) and in its historical use of the word "people" in instances referring to only "men." All of these references should be changed to "eligible citizens," otherwise, it is very misleading, as women are people and were not a part of these governments.


 * I would very much like to reach a consensus, so I look forward to hearing your refutations or compromises.Amyluna13 (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course there's a "burden of proof" for claims made in an article, it's called "secondary reliable sources needed". --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I agree. Which is why I provided the secondary reliable sources for my edit (which specifically addressed the other editor's stated concerns), but the person deleting my edits did not, which did not seem to be acting in equal good faith and in line with wikipedia policy.   I've noticed this trend before.  Since it is wikipedia policy that if consensus cannot be reached an edit is not included, it's all too easy to have a tyranny of the minority who holds out against something simply because they do not personally wish for it to be included, not because they provided a sourced argument against it.


 * I also wish to add that this particular discussion and distinction in extremely relevant, even today, as emerging new governments in Egypt and elsewhere are being universally characterized as "democratic" revolutions, when they are clearly patriarchal democracies and should be referred to as such. It is erroneous to say that including this qualifier is a "fixation." On the contrary, not including it is a "fixation" of denial of the glaringly obvious.


 * Because I see this trend over and over as an editor, I wish to again point out that removing historical masculinist bias from wikipedia articles makes them neutral and therefore more scholarly accurate, not "feminist." The absence of masculine bias is neutrality, not female bias.Amyluna13 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is accusing you of of promoting a feminist bias, not me nor the other editor who reverted your change. Let's all assume good faith. Concerning your arguments:
 * 1. and 4. The analogy does hold. Irrespective of whether the defining characteristic is immutable (like sex) or not, the point is that terms like patriarchy, technocracy, and theocracy all refer to government where the governors have a particular defining personal characteristic. Patriarchy is a qualitative description of government, not a quantitative description of government like monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. You say that patriarchy is "rule by HALF", but that is NOT what patriarchy actually means; there are other situations where rule is based on a defining personal characteristic other than biological sex yet still may numerically approximate "rule by HALF." I also dispute that religion is as "skill" as you claim it to be--in theocracies, people are born into and raised by religious groups, yet only one religion may rule. Theocracy, as well as rule by a particular racial group, are rule based on a particular personal characteristic and are analogous to patriarchy--not democracy, oligarchy, or monarchy.
 * 2. I largely concede this point.
 * 3. Patriarchy is not a basic form of government discussed by the Greeks. You cannot simply isolate a quote from Aristotle, highlight the word "MEN", and then claim that as proof; nor can you "imply" that meaning from Aristole's words. That is original research. If you find a reliable source that directly equates the term patriarchy with oligarchy, monarchy, and democracy in Greek philosophy, which are explicitly referenced as basic forms of government in Greek philosophy, then please reference it.
 * 5. and 6. You point out that patriarchy is a "hybrid" form of government. This assertion further supports the view that it is not a basic form of government that democracy should be contrasted against. You recognize that explicitly in your 5th point, and later refer to the term "patriarchal democracy." We do not list every other conceivable hybrid in the article, even common ones such "Christian democracy" or "white democracy," and we should not highlight patriarchy any more than these others--and certainly not if it will be characterized as a basic form of government to contrast democracy against.
 * Finally, if you would like to add more information into the article about women's suffrage elsewhere in the article with appropriate sources, that's great, but that is outside the scope of this particular conversation. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to accuse anyone of accusing me of female bias. I meant to identify a trend on wikipedia and it was my hope to nip it in the bud here before it reared it's ugly head.  I had reason to believe it might, as you used the qualifier "feminists argue" in one of your proofs which showed elements of both "ad hominem" and "appeal to authority" fallacies of bad faith argumentation that usually, in my experience, precede an accusation of female bias on my part in discussions such as this.  I apologize if I was unnecessarily hypervigilant and do wish to assume good faith. :)


 * This fascinating, timely and complex debate seems to have multiple points of contention, which I have attempted to summarize:


 * - Is patriarchy a form of government? (you have conceded this, I believe)
 * - Is patriarchy a BASIC form of government?
 * - Are basic forms of government by definition mutually exclusive or can they be blended and, if so, how do we define that? "hybrid" (my term) "mix" (the current term used in the article), or something else?
 * - Was patriarchy part of the philosophical discussions of the ancient Greeks in particular regarding the distribution of power in a society?
 * - Is patriarchy a type of oligarchy and, if so, how can oligarchy be in "opposition" to democracy, since democracies were (and in some cases still are) patriarchies?
 * - Is patriarchy analogous to anything else discussed in Greek philosophy that would have to be included as well, so as not to give "undue weight" to patriarchy?
 * - The relevance of qualitative vs. quantitative descriptors for classes of ruling elites


 * Whew! (deep breath…)


 * We have agreed that patriarchy is, in fact, a form of government.


 * Is patriarchy a BASIC form of government? There is no other form of government more basic than patriarchy in the history of the world.  If government is "the system by which a nation, state, or community is governed," there has been no organizing principle so universal as the system of distributing power along the lines of biological sex.  It is the one element of organization that has, in practice, existed through culture, time, ethnicity, religion, race, economics, etc.  Through democracies, oligarchies, monarchies and more, it has been the organizing principle that has been consistent in nearly all, up until less than a century ago.  As I said before, it's easy (if fallacious) for some political theorists to make the mistake of missing this point because patriarchy is so universal, that it becomes invisible (yes, I can cite sources for this phenomenon of the invisibility of masculinity in philosophical discussions of all sorts).  But it is a universal and basic principle of ruling organization, therefore government.  Dividing power along biological sex was not an "afterthought" or "subtype" or "characteristic." It was and is so basic, it has been the foundational "given" of power distribution--usually fallaciously justified ipso facto as being self-evident by "nature" as with Aristotle (see below)--upon which the houses of democracy, oligarchy and monarchy were built.  Ipso facto arguments still result in factos, lol, like the very real distribution of power that disempowered and disenfranchised over half the adult human population for nearly all of the history of the ancient and modern world.  Patriarchy's reality, influence and consequences are the single most vast of any principle of organization of power ever known.  Please provide any contrary evidence to this statement if you disagree.


 * Regarding the above, if I have to cite sources for my statements on the definition, reality and influence of patriarchy, than this article must also cite sources for oligarchy, monarchy, etc. and not just reference the wikipedia articles on these subjects, since you deleted my edit arguing that referencing the wikipedia article on patriarchy was not a sufficient source. As I said in my original edit, requesting me to cite sources for patriarchy is a biased standard and suggests a lack of good faith editing, as the other forms of government mentioned are not sourced outside of wikipedia.  I believe they are not cited with sources because it is assumed that their definitions and importance are self-evident.  Well, I believe the same is true of patriarchy, even more so.


 * Are basic forms of government by definition mutually exclusive or can they be blended and, if so, how do we define that? "hybrid" (my term) "mix" (the current term used in the article), or something else? You are confusing the concept of forms being mutually exclusive with the characteristic of being basic. Something does not have to be mutually exclusive (i.e. democracy, oligarchy, monarchy) to be basic.  It also does not have to be independent to be basic.  Basic elements can combine…that's what I'm referring to as a "hybrid", and, in this case, patriarchy is a hybrid element, but still basic.  Even basic forms that appear mutually exclusive by definition have been combined in reality. This is not an original argument, it has been made by political scholars and in fact, is put forward in the same paragraph in this article that is in question when it refers to a "mix of elements" in modern governments.  I simply used the word "hybrid" instead of "mix" as I think it's a more accurate term.


 * Was patriarchy part of the philosophical discussions of the ancient Greeks in particular? You suggested that I am making an "original" argument here and commented that I had erred in simply noting the use of the word "MEN' to make an argument and that I should provide sources for such a claim. I quite agree with you.  Which is why, in my original edit, I added a source which summarized Aristotle's explicit writings on patriarchy in Book One of "Politics."  My error, if any, was not that I did not cite sources for my argument but that I had assumed good faith on your part that you had read my cited sources before deleting my edit.  Also, since you pointed to Aristotle's "Politics" as a source for your own argument, I also (possibly incorrectly) assumed that you had read the document, in which Aristotle goes into great detail to describe why men should rule over women (patriarchy).  Nonetheless, as you requested, here are the original, applicable quotes of Aristotle in Book One of "Politics"…


 * "We must therefore look at the elements of which the state is composed, in order that we may see in what the different kinds of rule differ from one another, and whether any scientific result can be attained about each one of them."


 * "Seeing then that the state is made up of households, before speaking of the state we must speak of the management of the household. "


 * "As Homer says: "Each one gives law to his children and to his wives." "


 * "Now we should begin by examining everything in its fewest possible elements; and the first and fewest possible parts of a family are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children."


 * "For although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female,"


 * "When one rules and the other is ruled we endeavor to create a difference of outward forms and names and titles of respect...The relation of the male to the female is of this kind..."


 * "Clearly, then, moral virtue belongs to all of them; but the temperance of a man and of a woman, or the courage and justice of a man and of a woman, are not, as Socrates maintained, the same; the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying."


 * Is patriarchy a type of oligarchy and, if so, how can oligarchy be in "opposition" to democracy, since democracies were patriarchies? Again, obviously the Greeks did not think patriarchy was a type of oligarchy, as they did not see their society as an oligarchy and Aristotle is clearly defending patriarchy here.  If patriarchy is a type of oligarchy, then this article must reflect that and call Athens (and early America and Egypt today) an oligarchy or at least an oligarchic democracy, which means oligarchy and democracy cannot be mutually exclusive, so oligarchy is therefore not "in opposition" to democracy, as this article claims. I have made this core point twice and you have not yet addressed it.  Please do.


 * Is patriarchy analogous to anything else discussed in Greek philosophy that would have to be included as well, so as not to give "undue weight" to patriarchy? Yes, Aristotle spoke of the master/slave and father/child ruling authority  derived from "nature" as well as the male/female dynamic.  I would not be opposed to including a reference to those in addition to patriarchy.   I guess we do have a term to describe the master/slave power dynamic, we call that "slavery."  And we do have a word for "rule of the father" it's...patriarchy.


 * The relevance of qualitative vs. quantitative descriptors for classes of ruling elites. This is perhaps the most subtle of the arguments here.  I would argue that patriarchy is distinctive both qualitatively and quantitatively for the purposes of this discussion.  Yes, it is a "quality" (biological sex) but its large number (nearly half the adult population) makes it unique from the qualitative oligarchies such as those based on religious or labor classification.  Oligarchy in this very article is defined as "rule of the few" and men cannot possibly be described as "few."  So, yes, the numbers are relevant to assigning a unique category to patriarchy.


 * Also, the qualifier of sex is distinct here from religious ("Christian) or racial ("white") because these qualifiers were not singled out as elemental to the justification for power distribution in the discussions of Aristotle, although one could argue that race is included in his master/slave argument, which I have already conceded is relevant.


 * In sum, the wikipedia article on types of governments lists dozens of names for different permutations of governmental organization. The debate here is why patriarchy should be elevated to this discussion in relevance and importance alongside oligarchy and monarchy. When discussing Athenian political philosophy, a discussion of patriarchy is relevant because they acknowledged it in both theory and practice.  When discussing democracy, a discussion of patriarchy is relevant because not including it implies that "democracies" were "rule of the people" which they were not.  They were rule of less than half the people.  Further, can you show examples of blended oligarchic democracies combining the type of oligarchies that you believe are analagous to patriarchy that have been as historically pervasive as the hybrid of patriarchy and democracy?  If not, then discussing patriarchy here is, in fact, giving it its "due weight."


 * Common Ground: Patriarchy was a part of the philosophical discussion, organization of government and consequent power distribution of all democratic societies and its absence in this article is glaring. I am willing to say that democracy and oligarchy and monarchy are usually cited as a group of governmental systems contrasting each other by number, but we need to find a way to reference patriarchy in this discussion.  I am open to suggestions that are agreeable to you.


 * Finally, I do intend to add the history of women's suffrage to this article. I was introducing the idea in the talk section first as a heads up and also because it's inexplicable exclusion suggests a possible lack of consciousness on the part of the editors of this article on the relevance of biological sex to a discussion of the history and definition of democracy which I am attempting to rectify. :)


 * Thank you again for your comments and your time. Amyluna13 (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * After looking over the article, there does appear to be a void with regard to the issue of patriarchy in democracies. This, I would suggest, is something that could use more weight, as virtually all democracies up until the mid-twentieth century had excluded women, which is rather significant. Although it is a basic form of governance, I'm not convinced it belongs with the other list of terms under the basic forms section (because that section lists more what a state might classify itself as today), which it seems that this is proposed for. Inclusion in the "criticisms" section may be called for? or a new section of some sort that describes the way that people have been excluded in democracies as 'non-citizens' or put into sub classes?
 * On another note, I wonder if matriarchy could also be included? for balance? but it is my understanding that matriarchies primarily existed pre-Athenian democracy, so I don't have any sources to support its inclusion, and am wondering if others have stumbled across much on this subject.AnieHall (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On women's suffrage, it does seem like something that should be included. But because it has its own article, I think it should be quite summary - and maybe a general section on suffrage, with more specific subheadings, would an improvement (i.e. gender, racial, religious, class and other forms of exclusion) -- linking to their full articles.AnieHall (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I agree with mostly all of your observations.  My only disagreement is your suggestion to include matriarchy for "balance."  I'm confused.  What are you balancing? This is an article on the definition and historical manifestations of democracy as a form of government.  I'm not aware of any historical matriarchal democracies or a philosophical discussion of matriarchy with respect to the formation of government in any of the cited texts of ancient Greece, etc. or any other widely influential political philosophers writing on the subject of democracy.  The only relevance of matriarchy to this discussion would be to say something like, "Nope, nobody ever suggested matriarchy, discussed it philosophically or thought to try it out in reality."  I don't think it is logical to include something that is absent in the historical record.  Theoretically, we'd have to include EVERYTHING that was never discussed or implemented historically regarding democratic theory or practice.  A subject which is infinite, of course, and therefore unworkable.  The historical reality in theory and practice was/is patriarchy, not matriarchy.


 * I do agree that the whole approach to including patriarchy may need to be reworked. I will give it some thought and put something together and submit it to the talk section. cheers, Amyluna13 (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, well, the inclusion of matriarchy was just a thought, as matriarchy might be thought of as patriarchy's opposite, and as I'm not aware of any sources that discuss matriarchy in context with democracy (not that means there are not sources - but until a reputable one is found, it's, of course, not something that should be included). Although, the Iroquois have been described as having a form of democracy that predates Athenian democracy, and have also been described as matriarchal -- so I'm not convinced that the topic of matriarchy and democracy is non-existent. But I am not sure how clear the scholarship on that subject is. --Just thought I'd throw the idea out there. It's at least not as developed a topic is patriarchy in democracies, or as modern (to my knowledge).AnieHall (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, AnieHall. However, the inclusion of women's voices in a democratic government is NOT matriarchy.  The opposite of patriarchy IS matriarchy, but that would mean that men were disempowered and disenfranchised altogether, and I don't believe we've seen a manifestation of a democratic society were women by virtue of their biological sex at birth were given citizenship and men, by virtue of their biological sex, were excluded from any political participation.  My understanding is that the Iroquois system gave the voice of women great weight but shared power between the sexes.  It is a common mistake of anthropologists, historians, etc. to look at cultures that gave women co-equal power with men as "matriarchal" which in itself shows bias.  However, the fact that the American Founders selectively chose elements of Iroquois government to adopt while ignoring others (like the political empowerment of women) is definitely relevant to this article and should be included.  It's notable that Elizabeth Cady Stanton was partly inspired to hold the Seneca Falls Convention of 1842 after socializing with local Iroquois women who had remarked to her that they did not want to become U.S. citizens because they would lose much of the rights they had as members of the democratic Iroquois nation which gave women a political voice, and other rights of property, divorce, etc.  The hypocrisy that the "heathen" natives were more progressive and enlightened regarding women than the "civilized" colonists was not lost on her. Which is part of what needs to be included in this article in a section on enfranchisement.  Thanks! Amyluna13 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

abandoned sentence?
This sentence seems to be out of place and non-sequitur in the "Origins" section, possibly the result of an earlier edit?:

"The Romans invented the concept of classics and many works from Ancient Greece were preserved." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.74.129 (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Democracy and Sovereignty
It looks obvious, that democracy is possible only in the de-facto independent country. Elections and other attributes of democracy has no matter, if country has no real independence. In the article I have found only "In most modern democracies, the whole body of all eligible citizens remain the sovereign power", but it is a bit different 178.71.39.250 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Countries & Democracy and Sovereignty
I think that it would add to the quality of the article if there was a structure to take you to individual sovereign countries and their nation states. Another aspect is the issue of enfranchisement which is mentioned in the article but once again would be interesting to be examined according to each nation state.

I find the Economist's Index for Democracy absurd. The Economist is a news magazine and its suggestion for an index cannot be viewed as a suitable source. Isthisuseful (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying the difference between theory and practice
This is a key paragraph I think needs to be reworked.

"The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (kratos) "power" in the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to ἀριστοκρατία "rule of an elite." The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents."

This paragraph makes two logically conflicting claims


 * 1) "democracy" means "rule of the people" and was coined to denote the political systems of Greek city-states, notably Athens
 * 2) the antonym of "democracy" is "rule of an elite"


 * because if
 * Athens = democracy
 * and
 * democracy does not = "rule of an elite"
 * then it logically must follow that
 * Athens does not = "rule of an elite"

but Athens was the "rule of an elite" class...propertied, free males.

I think it should be clarified that although this is what the terms may have meant, that is not what they were in practice for the next 24 of 25 centuries, starting with Athens. I would like to first make that change. Comments? Amyluna13 (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

/ THE FALLACIES OF NOT UNDERSTANDING DIALECTIAL ELLENIC TONGUES OR 'NON-UNIFIED' "GREEK":

'Themos' or 'Demos' does not mean people, it is archaic in meaning. It literally means "the strength in the number assembled" and 'Kratos' means "the (represented) portion or identity of the state". Greek is a very non linear language, where words have stratified or layered definitions. Don't look to Classical Latin as a parallel; Latin only had 20,000 words and Greek probably had 150-200,000 words at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.143.84 (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

access to information
Maybe I'm missing something but if the elected decision makers in a democracy choose to withhold certain information then the electorate cannot make an educated decision and the elected can this way unfairly influence the electorate, therefore access to relevant information must be a prerequisite in democracy, but I can't see this anywhere in the article. I admit to being a political theory newbie, though. 78.144.66.2 (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Countries
It is a dispute whether Taiwan is a country. Taiwan is excluded from UN now. It will be a long long talk on this subject and Chinese government is serious on this. I think the title of this section should be changed to "Countries and Regions". --Qijiang ok (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, personally, what are you proposing, Qijiang ok, ironically goes against the principles of democracy (for which this page is about). The people of Taiwan, in a democratic world, have every right for political equality with the people of People's Republic of China. If the people of Taiwan chose their own political self-determination, which is a very basic principle of Democracy, then, who is the Chinese government to dispute this? It is time for the Chinese government to learn its position, like everybody of us did --SilentResident (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC).

Residual discussion of "coalitions" is unconnected to current content
In section "Criticism", subsection "Political Instability", the second paragraph, commencing "This opportunist alliance" discusses the instability of coalition governments, without ever connecting this to the other content in that subsection. Presumably this is residual content from an earlier edit, but it is now totally orphaned and nonsensical in the current context. I don't have the necessary knowledge, but it would be good if someone could step up and restore the context - if not, this paragraph should be deleted.Ian Page (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Campaign financing as major issue
I think we whould mention the problem of campaign financing in this article. Campaign financing is a major obstacle to democratic countries for them to call themselves as being truly democractic. This, as not all political parties are able to spend a same amount of money on their campaign; hence benefitting parties that have more money (which is hence inheritly undemocratic). This money comes from private founders/companies which often expect something in return (ie new laws that help them to increase their revenue), hence promoting corruption.

See http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/campaign-finance-regulation-faulty-assumptions-undemocratic-consequences, http://socialproblemsarelikemaths.blogspot.be/2012/04/when-is-campaign-finance-undemocratic.html , http://conventions.cps.neu.edu/campaign-finance/introduction/

Perhaps we also need to mention the Federal Election Campaign Act, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Tillman Act, Federal Corrupt Practices Act, Federal Election Campaign Act, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 81.242.247.101 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism?
In the first sentence of the second paragraph under the subheading seems to read "In the 1920s democracy butt goat flourished..."; however, when I attempt to edit the page to remove "butt goat" it does not appear in the source. Maybe someone with greater Wikipedia-skills knows what is going on or how to fix it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.21.59 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Democracy Index
India is listed as both a flawed democracy (2011 Democracy Index) and a full democracy (2012 Democracy Index). It should be listed only as a full democracy, and its inclusion as a flawed democracy should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:480:52:BD71:D64A:4EE:6169 (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20090515034942/http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157129/democracy. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of ref
Some citations (14/15 especially) are not references at all but explanations written by individuals on Wikipedia. The ref tag demands an actual reference, not an explanation or personal view held by a wikipedian.


 * That's inaccurate. Footnotes use the ref tag and can be used for explanatory information. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What democracy is not
Over at redirects for discussion, there is a discussion as to where Nondemocracy should point to. I think the best answer would be to add a section to this article giving some examples of non-democratic systems that have the appearance of democracy. Some possibilities include Apartheid, Single-party state, Oligarchy and Totalitarian democracy. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of democracy: Violence and democracy (Violent Democracy)
For example, democracy has led to violence in World war 1, 2, Vietnam war, India vs Pakistan, Iraq war and many other war scenarios. Also internal police violence against peaceful protestors and general public. Teaksmitty (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, those events were caused by numerous contributing factors. Somchai Sun (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

w
noting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.18.100.179 (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Country name
In the list of full democracies, Ireland is not a country - it is an island, with two legislative components. --24.88.64.22 (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Changed link to Republic of Ireland. Whizz40 (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014
There is no such thing as a representative democracy... that is called a republic. The United States of America is a Republic.

108.45.80.158 (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see the many reliable sources cited within this article establishing that there is "such a thing" as a representative democracy. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

American English
--Why is this in British English, when it was started, and substantiated in American English. There is a spate of people drive-by tagging things British English years after the article started, and this type of blatent disregard for the richness of all varieties of English shouldn't stand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The map needs to be updated on Peninsula Malaysia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#mediaviewer/File:Forms_of_government.svg

On the map above Peninsula Malaysia is shaded as part of Thailand and it is a military dictatorship.

Meanwhile, Sabah and Sarawak have parliamentary constitutional monarchies.

Peninsula Malaysia is not part of Thailand and it's certainly not a military dictatorship

Malaysia as a whole (Peninsula Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak) is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. The same is the case with Thailand.

As a Malaysian, I find this map both inaccurate and offensive.

The map needs updating.

--175.136.216.192 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Democracy equalling the will of the average citizen
Shouldn't we mention more clearly that democracy is a form of government that ensures the the will of the "average" citizen is enforced, and not the will of any mid-income level citizen ? Also, it should be mentioned that anyone living in a democratic country that does not agree with any of the regulations his country imposes on him, really has no choice but to accept them unless he were to also be given the option of leaving the country indefinitely. Due to restrictions on freedom of movement however (visa requirements for indefinite stay being required), this is currently still impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.130.191.133 (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Problems
I find some problems with this article.
 * The main definition in the lead has 4 points that come from a reference with no author and no way of verifying its reliability.
 * I have fixed this. Bit I'm worried it's only one person's view.


 * The rest of that lead paragraph has no citation.
 * In Characteristics, the accessible citation 6 does not include "rule of law". The other reference 7 is broken.
 * In the same section, citations 8 and 9 have no page numbers to support the assertions.
 * There are a lot of citation needed tags.
 * In Middle ages,the paragraph about parliament has 2 citations, neither of which say "The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into Magna Carta (1215)".Myrvin (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a cite for Magna Carta paving the way for parliament. Whizz40 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The word 'freedom' appears a lot, without always saying what sort of freedom, freedom from or for what? See the Economist article. Myrvin (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead
Something serious should be done about the lead. Editors are using parts of a lecture put online. I think editors are cherry-picking the parts of this lecture they like, and I think adding things that are not there. At the moment the first paragraph says:"Democracy is a political system that is based upon having rule of law where all citizens: have human rights; are treated equally and all laws apply equally to all citizens; are encouraged to participate in politics and civic life; and choose the government through free and fair elections. In a democratic society, politicians are obligated to represent their constituents."The source actually says We can think of democracy as a system of government with four key elements: 1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections. 2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life. 3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens. 4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.


 * So, it's "democracy as a system of government", not a 'political system' - that's one of the four key elements. It is a type of government, not just a political system.
 * I don't see "politicians are obligated to represent their constituents".

Why don't we just use a paraphrase or quote of the words in the source? Only one source is not good enough. Paragraph two is not cited and should be re-written or removed. I'll try to improve it.Myrvin (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Years under democratic rule
I've undone the addition of the the Max Range table added by. If we add such a table, third party sources should be provided that show this table has some impact/notability amongst scholars. --Neil N  talk to me 23:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131126084704/http://www.oxonianreview.org/issues/2-2/2-2-6.htm to http://www.oxonianreview.org/issues/2-2/2-2-6.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100122024553/http://www.freedomhouse.org:80/template.cfm?page=368&year=2007 to http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=368&year=2007
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131016184935/http://www.fordemocracy.net:80/electoral.shtml to http://www.fordemocracy.net/electoral.shtml#
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100117121519/http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3985561 to http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3985561
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120805023214/http://www.sec.state.vt.us:80/TownMeeting/citizens_guide.html to http://www.sec.state.vt.us/townmeeting/citizens_guide.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725220629/http://www.danielearchibugi.org/downloads/papers/CD_and_critics_A_review.pdf to http://www.danielearchibugi.org/downloads/papers/CD_and_critics_A_review.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Initial definition
I have reverted an edit that removes the quotation marks around the OED def, on the grounds that you don't need the marks if the reference is given. A very odd reason. Also, the ellipsis dots were removed on the grounds that they make the quotation not 'literal'. Another odd reason. Myrvin (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See MOS:QUOTE & MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Myrvin (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only are quotation marks required for quotes, but so is an in-text attribution, according to WP:INTEXT. I've added this as well. Alternatively, we can rewrite the definition using our own words, and neither quotation marks or in-text attribution would be required. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Democracy, or democratic government??? The "Democracy" as an original concept is by far not the same as the Democracy as form of political system or government. The democracy-concept refers to the idea that the political power or power to make decisions on large and important issues related to society belongs to "the people" or the citizens of that country. Democratic-government that is present nowadays is not really democratic in terms of original concept - since the citizens are only allowed to vote for representatives and NOT directly influence decisions.--Dmitri 152 (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This sentence
"only a minority of Romans were citizens with votes in elections for representatives" The same thing applies to Greeks and yet the sentence seems to make this seem like a significant difference between Athenian and Roman democracies. Preventing women from voting already banned half of the population from politics, not to mention the slaves, so pretty much the majority of Greeks couldn't vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.78.68 (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214000000/http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php to https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2014
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081214000000/http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf to http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126084704/http://www.oxonianreview.org/issues/2-2/2-2-6.htm to http://www.oxonianreview.org/issues/2-2/2-2-6.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714073725/http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/manassas/social/introsoc.htm to http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/manassas/social/introsoc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901040610/http://paw.princeton.edu/memorials/24/79/index.xml to http://paw.princeton.edu/memorials/24/79/index.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141024130317/http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html to http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827213104/http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/rev892.html to http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/rev892.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140608221353/http://www.ourworldindata.org/data/political-regimes/democratisation/ to http://www.ourworldindata.org/data/political-regimes/democratisation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"One-party participatory democracy" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect One-party participatory democracy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Zerach (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Indiscriminate revert of peer-reviewed academic research
The editor Puzzledvegetable reverted content that was exclusively sourced to peer-reviewed research (nearly all of which was published in top journal in political science and economic history), some of which is foundational work in the study of the origins of democracy. No rationale was provided for the mass-revert except "npov". The content should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I was in the process of adding more peer-reviewed research, but I guess there's no point if an editor is just going to casually revert anything that gets added and undo all the work that is put into improving this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes this particularly galling is that the editor who casually removed all that hard work has not him/herself made a single substantive contribution to this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the newly added content was very good and belongs on this article. I was puzzled both by Puzzledvegetable's revert and by the unhelpful edit summary. Neutralitytalk 21:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was a mistake. Worth noting, however, that the argument about not having edited the article before is utterly irrelevant. Anyway, I have reverted the reversion. My apologies. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  21:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights."
Not true for modern democracy. Please site a reference that supports the statement. - Calif.DonTracy (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I specified that democracy has many decision making methods but this is the dominant Nsae Comp (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The quoted statement is true in an absolute democracy. The vast majority of modern democracies are democratic republics; recall that a republic is a form of government where power is wielded in accordance to established rules. TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 04:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Iran as "full presidential republic" ??
That's a fake democracy. The dictator, Khamenei, decides who can be nominee on elections to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:188:6FE0:908D:14F4:5223:681B (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You can, of course, provide reliable third-party resources to back up your assertion? TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 04:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "This map presents only the de jure form of government, and not the de facto degree of democracy." Of course, it is important to note that no one said that Iran was democratic. They indeed do have presidential elections, but unfortunately the elections are basically worthless because the state is a dictatorial totalitarianism.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 22:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention
I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead needs editing - overlong and confusing wording
The lead is currently 8 considerable paragraphs, well more than the 3-4 recommended. In addition, I think a lot of the writing, particularly in the first two paragraphs, is confusing. It should be simplified and reduced. After some discussion here I plan to make changes to keep the lead short and effective, as it is the most read and most visible part of the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead seems fine to me as it is. Whizz40 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Footnote 35, source pertaining to "demos" meaning "common people"
Footnote 35 is listed as the source for the word "demos", in Ancient Greek, to mean "common people". I find that the source is not good. The source is the website etymonline.com which is not as far as I can find affiliated with any university and does not in itself post sources to the proclaimed etymological origins. Looking at the quotations for the english wiktionary page on "demos", https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos, I find that the correlation for it to mean a common people is weak, but rather what it seems from those sources is that a more proper translation is just a people of any kind, not just the common people.

This is my first post so I'm not entirely sure if it's apt for me to post this here and I hope it's not too much trouble if I do, this is just something that struck my eye.

Democracy is government by the people to choose.
Not only to vote on legislation and or in modern times representatives to do that for them.

Back before the Elections of 2020 in the US, the article stated legislation only, which was later changed in december to legislators.

Which is a HUGE difference to what democracy means.

And yes I know this has been debated probably time and time again.

But for sure, it's NOT only legislators in modern times. And the terminology in the first sentence should reflect this. That both is possible at the same time, or either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.162.179.13 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Human rights
Humans should be treated as one or as equal because we are all humans no matter you are black or white Anam Phuke (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous source?
In the references section this article from around 2009 is cited, but it’s tag doesn’t appear to be anywhere in the actual article. Any ideas as to where it was supposed to go? - ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Why original research?
The Democratic Potential of Confucian Minben Thought - Viren Murthy Still original research in democracy?Then why someone can delete this page for original research? HKT3593 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The Democratic Potential of Confucian Minben Thought - Viren Murthy

Still original research in democracy? Then why someone can delete this page by original research? HKT3593 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Undue
The section "Characteristics" seems to give a bit of undue weight to minority opinions. It would be useful, I think, to start with the portions everybody agrees on, and then move forward to various opinions about democracy. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Circular definition
The introductory sentence of the lede (Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') is a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing officials or to deliberate and decide legislation via direct democracy...) seems to end in a circular definition — essentially claiming that democracy is when people choose their governing officials through direct democracy. This does not properly define what democracy is. I changed the end to "...or to deliberate and decide legislation through a system of voting...", but it was reverted. Does anyone have any ideas on what else could be put at the end to make it less circular?ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe the intent was to point out that there are two forms of democracy, direct democracy and representative democracy. I reworded it to try to make this clearer. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove translation section
I believe that the "translation" section should be removed. The information it contains belongs to the Chinese wikipedia. There is a link to it in the "languages" column. Agnerf (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Agnerf (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Law
The democracy functions effectively dur to 2402:8100:309B:9785:1:0:B663:18DB (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tlevenda.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A better distinction between the direct and representative democracy
The main article about democracy is split into direct and representative democracy. The main democracy article could specifcy that most of the time when people say democracy, they talk about representative democracy, and few people have experienced or demanded a direct democracy in their country. The article does not specifcy the contrast between the two democracy, and the fact that representative democracy is not the pure form of democracy, but the direcy democracy is. TudorTulok (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Tis is covered sufficiently in the lead. Read the 2nd paragraph. Zaathras (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Percent decline figure in introduction
The figure at the top saying that support has declined from 74% to 58% is very incorrect. That number is the amount of people estimated to be covered by the survey linked in the citation. The actual number appears to be closer to 80% in the Results section, although the respondents were asked to rate their support on a 1-4 scale, not a binary Yes/No. 2600:6C44:7F:873C:7017:BF86:8EC6:A177 (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Civics
Importance of democratic election 154.74.127.187 (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Neglected societies and NPOV?
This article completely ignores traditional societies such as the Iroquoian or Algonquian Peoples in North America, various African societies with and without institutional governments, as well as Medieval Germanic peoples. This seems very odd, given that cultures such as the Iroquois had a constitution, explicit of deliberation, widespread public participation in the political process, etc.—on a level far surpassing anything in the US today, for that matter. It's frankly strange and blatantly ethnocentric to posit Classical Athens, with its pervasive slavery and extreme subjugation of women, was more democratic than the Iroquois Confederacy at its height in the 18th century. Yes, Athens had "property rights" which closer to the neoliberal model than the Iroquois, but that's a weird non-sequitor. The same goes with the Osage Nation or the Ojibwa. This article isn't titled "liberal democracy," "history of democracy in the West", or "industrial democracy," but rather *just* "Democracy."

Jamutaq (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, democracy is common, and this article is extremely biased. Freoh (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @CH Ahens why are you removing maintenance tags instead of discussing concerns on the talk page? See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Freoh (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * IMO because this isn't a real concern. It has been a fun academic game in the last few decades to declare "Iroquois democracy influenced the US Constitution, but that is a vast oversimplification and exaggeration. Classical Athens was the model for modern democracy, this isn't really a debate. Zaathras (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What is undemocratic about the Iroquois Confederacy? Freoh (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's, um, not even remotely what I said. Zaathras (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the "democracies have been rare" comment is disputed. And that the history section could be more inclusive of non-Western democracies. I don't see what that Politifact article has anything to do with these points. Freoh (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources needed in the lead for claims not in the body
@Nampa DC recently deleted some maintenance tags without discussing on the talk page first. They gave the justification that "no need for source in lede when in the body", but I had put the tag on a claim that I couldn't find supported in the body. Where in the body is the claim supported? Freoh (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Zaathras, please seek consensus here before removing maintenance tags. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT. I don't understand your comment on these deletions: "Tags are not necessary when this." What do you mean by this? I don't see this claim justified by a source anywhere: "The original form of democracy was a direct democracy." Freoh (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As multiple people have objected, you don't get to keep re-reverting your preference back in. You're at WP:3RR at the moment. Zaathras (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I'm not trying to "re-revert my preference back in." I'm trying to stimulate discussion about important claims in this article that lack citations, so that this article can be more in-line with WP:VERIFY. Aren't you supposed to get consensus before removing maintenance tags? And still none of my concerns have been addressed; this seems like a lot of drive-by de-tagging. Freoh (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop reverting in the article or you will be banned from editing there.
 * That said, the sentence "In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries." isn't good and should be reworded. If there's no universal vote, there is no democracy, so I'm not sure what this sentence means. T8612  (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's no universal vote, there is no democracy. Where is this coming from? This contradicts a lot of other Wikipedia pages, for example Jacksonian Democracy. Freoh (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Jacksonian Democracy is the name of Jackson's policy of extending suffrage, not a description of the American political system at the time. T8612  (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Ownership behavior from CH Ahens
@CH Ahens, why have you been repeatedly removing maintenance tags without explanation? Please try to seek consensus here on the talk page. See WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Freoh (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You can’t just stick a tag on an article and then state seek a consensus. The talk page is the location for seeking a consensus and where issues are put forward. If you have reliable sources that support your issue then use them. CH Ahens (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources that support your issue then use them. What do you mean? I did. Freoh (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Your issue (Western focus) and the Athenian origin of democracy, if you have reliable sources that counter this then use them. You would need to gain a consensus of course as this is a dramatic alteration of what is accepted among scholars. CH Ahens (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Athenian democracy is not generally held as the first example of a type of democracy
The current version of the Democracy section includes the following:

I don't see anything in the cited source about Athenian democracy being generally accepted as the first example of a type of democracy. Further, this claim is disputed by the article at doi:10.1017/aaq.2022.31. Freoh (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that article actually disproves the claim, since it makes Muskogean democracy a thousand years younger than Athenian democracy. Thompson et al. say "Consequently, it seems that, in terms of overall inclusiveness, democratic governance among Ancestral Muskogeans was more inclusive than some of the so-called earliest examples of these kinds of institutions in ancient history (e.g., Athens, Greece)." (my emphasis). That "so-called" shows that they accept the general opinion is that that Athens is earliest, even if they are questioning some of the details (and note that they are not saying that Athens was not a democracy or that it was not older than Muskogean democracy. Furius (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that that "so-called" shows that they accept the general opinion is that that Athens is earliest, and the point was more that democracy has disparate origins, so it doesn't make sense to hold one up as the first, especially if you describe this view as generally accepted without a source. Freoh (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See this search. If you think the point needs further referencing, by all means add some. I will remove your over-eager tag, but discussion can of course continue here. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A Google search is not exactly a reliable source. The first result starts off saying that it is probable that the Athenians were not the first group of people to adopt such a system, so that just seems like further evidence of dispute. What was over-eager about the tag? Freoh (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have written, it "shows that they accept that the general opinion is that Athens is earliest." They might not agree with that opinion, though they aren't totally clear on that. Furius (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it says anything about general opinion, just that it's someone's opinion. Freoh (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

What this article should be rather then what it wants to be
Please avoid categorisation of countries or nations into indexes of "democracy". This article should be about the history of democracy, the definitions of democracy, rather then including many subjective biased viewpoints about which countries suit into a specific definition of democracy. To further expand my viewpoint, it's obvious that those who bend to the will of the US gets rated "more democratic", as apparently that is the definition of democracy that people must be enforced to follow. This means that for instance, countries like Singapore might get highly rated, except this is the place where you can't even chew bubblegum and whilst it claims to be a multi-party democracy it is anything but, being a very authoritarian and right-wing country in reality. Same with Japan and South Korea, where they act as US client states and are very right-wing in nature. This applies to many countries in the world where there seems to be a hypocritical stance on the nature of democracy. 118.211.76.187 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article should continue to include democracy indexes and so on because they are cited in reliable sources. Singapore's ratings in the index that appears at left on the article aren't actually very good ("flawed") and other US allies (e.g., Saudi Arabia and Ukraine) have low ratings. However, some criticism of democracy indexes, backed up by reliable sources, is included in the article and more could be. But (a) the reliable sources are key and (b) we shouldn't be taking stuff out just because it is subjective. This isn't a topic where there would be anything left in the article if you did that. The idea that Japan and South Korea are American "client states" is WP:FRINGE. Furius (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"A person casts their vote ..."

 * "A person casts their vote in the second round of the 2007 French presidential election."

It looks like it's probably a female from the captioned photo, but in any case it is highly inappropriate and inflammatory to use a plural pronoun for one person's vote, and this is not a situation where gender is relevant at all, only that each person's vote be counted once and only once. Stick with the "his" or "her" for one vote, please. -- justinacolmena (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The gender of the subject of the photo is unknown (and we agree it is irrelevant), and the singular they is considered an acceptable gender neutral pronoun here, so I think we have better things to worry about than this photo caption. The image clearly depicts the casting of one ballot, we can only assume it is the ballot of the person holding it, and the caption doesn't imply anything to the contrary.  General Ization Talk  02:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II
Consider changing the example of Queen Elizabeth II to king Charles III (or another constitutional monarch from a different country). I think it is better to give an example of a living monarch. 213.205.198.108 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done ✅ Whizz40 (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)